Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
memzba

anyone here know about HIGH PPD sunscreens and the whole Europe/USA stable thing?

ok. if you dont know already..almost all of the sunscreens in American are horrible. they simply do not work, scientifically proven. (i only say this because its been PROVEN) some of the sunscreen ingredients counteract with eachother and break down in sunlight, this means they are unstable. there are 2 types of sunscreen ingredients in Europe, called Mexoryl and Tinosorb. they are not FDA approved here yet, but they have been proven to be significantly more effective in blocking UVA rays. now, UVA rays are the worse of the 2 (UVA & UVB) because UVA causes premature aging, wrinkles, sunspots, and all of that icky stuff. UVB causes burning. a PPD rating is like SPF, but it shows how much UVA protection you are getting. dermatologists recommend a ppd of 10 or greater. so, in conclusion, the sunscreens in Europe are more effective. and until the 2 ingredients are approved in America, your best bet is to buy from an online store. its really not a huge deal, i've tried many different types and some are expensive, but its usually bearable.

also, one other important thing. i think its either Mexoryl or Tinosorb (1 of the 2) but it has been proven that one of those ingredients has a molecular weight > 500 (some jargon like that) which means that its too big to penetrate into your skin, so it wont affect anything in a bad way inside of you.

good luck! and remember, the sun is not good. you need to be protected! if you are not wearing ss daily, re-applyin 2 hours (because the protection can wear off) then you're going to keep moving backward. for example, if you are using a retinoid for your acne, thats a step forward, but if you're not wearing sunscreen that 5 huge steps backward.

1 last thing lol, once you start using a high ppd ss from Europe and you reapply it every 2 hours, you WILL start to see a difference in your skin. your skin will hold more moisture, it wont be as red or irritated, it's just a super wonderfully healthy thing to do for your skin!

do with this info what you will :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zinc and titanium oxide block uva rays.. there better than chemical sun screen because not only are they less irritating but they block both uva/uvb. .. i also read that you need about a handful amount of chemical sunscreens just to get the protection it says on the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zinc oxide and titanium dioxide do block some UVA, yes, but they offer minimal very minimal UVA protection. they do not cover the same length of the wavelength as Mexoryl or Tinosorb. they miss a lot of the wavelength, and thats not good. and yes, you need to apply approx. 1/4 tsp to your face each and neck (or 1/2 tsp for face and neck together). this is because these are the amounts that the laboratories test the sunscreens at. so if you apply less, you're getting virtually no protection!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i guess no one cares then. i feel sorry for a lot of you. you dont understand the importance of sunscreen. maybe one day you'll look at the research and literature and clinical trials and maybe you'll realize...your marks are never going to fade if you dont wear sunscreen. they might, but its going to be delayed for years. sorry...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zinc oxide and titanium dioxide do block some UVA, yes, but they offer minimal very minimal UVA protection. they do not cover the same length of the wavelength as Mexoryl or Tinosorb. they miss a lot of the wavelength, and thats not good.

Are you sure? zinc oxide and titanium oxide ought to be complete blocks for all UV.

This link: http://www.consumersearch.com/www/family/sunscreen/

says that zinc oxide and titanium oxide are good UVA blockers. (Basically zinc/titanium oxide is like white paint, it physically reflects the light away from the skin.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i guess no one cares then. i feel sorry for a lot of you. you dont understand the importance of sunscreen. maybe one day you'll look at the research and literature and clinical trials and maybe you'll realize...your marks are never going to fade if you dont wear sunscreen. they might, but its going to be delayed for years. sorry...

Ok, if you're right, what do you want us to do about it? I'm not going to fly to europe to buy moisturizer. No need to get an attitude because your post didn't get as many replies as you wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can order euro sunscreens online, just a tad bit more expensive than drugstore sunscreens, + shipping. i dont mind at all about the replies, im seeing that no one cares really about sunscreen. barely anyone on this forum uses it religiously and no one seems to want to read the research and published clinical trials on the sun's damaging rays...without extrinsic aging (sun damage) we wouldn't wrinkle or age until 80 and onward, just because of intrinsic aging (time aging)...i dont have an attitude, im a nice person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so which sunscreen do you use??

I am a super pale redhead on retin a; so I apply sunscreen religiously. I have forever. Both my dad and sister have had to get basal skin cancers removed, so I'm very cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zinc oxide and titanium dioxide do block some UVA, yes, but they offer minimal very minimal UVA protection. they do not cover the same length of the wavelength as Mexoryl or Tinosorb. they miss a lot of the wavelength

Here is an excerpt from one of the cosmeticop books about Mexoryl compared to these other sunscreens:

L’Oreal is correct when it says that 'it isn’t enough to protect against UVBs; skin must also be protected against UVAs. These two components of sunlight differ by virtue of their electromagnetic spectrum, their intensity, and their wavelength (290/320 nanometres for UVBs, 320/400 nanometres for UVAs), which indicates their ability to penetrate deeply into the skin. True, UVAs are intrinistically less powerful than UVBs, but they are more numerus and more penetrating. Mexoryl SX was the molecule finally selected. It brings together all of the essential required features [with] maximum absorption of 345 nanometres.' While I completely accept L’Oreal’s research in regard to UVA protection and the effectiveness of Mexoryl SX, the research I’ve seen from Hoffman-LaRoche, the manufactures and patent holder of avobenzone, indicates that avobenzone absorbs up to 400 nanometres. The manufacturers of zinc oxide have shown their micronized zinc oxide to be effective at 380 nanometres. And the manufactures of titanium dioxide have shown it to be effective at up to 360 nanometres. This may seem like hairsplitting, but when it comes to protecting the skin from UVA damage, every nanometre counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya but to be able to wear the physical sunscreens with that much protection it would look like stage makeup, seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i read that the cetaphil facial moisturizer + sunscreen has a ppd of 8, which makes it one of the better sunscreens on the american market.

what sunscreen do you use memzba? i agree that uva protection is really important, but it's hard to choose a sunscreen that will efficiently protect your skin without causing irritation and creating shine. i think in general it's already tedious to apply sunscreen every single day, so getting people to switch to an european sunscreen might be an uphill climb. but good of you to get the word out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. if you dont know already..almost all of the sunscreens in American are horrible. they simply do not work, scientifically proven. (i only say this because its been PROVEN) some of the sunscreen ingredients counteract with eachother and break down in sunlight, this means they are unstable. there are 2 types of sunscreen ingredients in Europe, called Mexoryl and Tinosorb. they are not FDA approved here yet, but they have been proven to be significantly more effective in blocking UVA rays. now, UVA rays are the worse of the 2 (UVA & UVB) because UVA causes premature aging, wrinkles, sunspots, and all of that icky stuff. UVB causes burning. a PPD rating is like SPF, but it shows how much UVA protection you are getting. dermatologists recommend a ppd of 10 or greater. so, in conclusion, the sunscreens in Europe are more effective. and until the 2 ingredients are approved in America, your best bet is to buy from an online store. its really not a huge deal, i've tried many different types and some are expensive, but its usually bearable.

also, one other important thing. i think its either Mexoryl or Tinosorb (1 of the 2) but it has been proven that one of those ingredients has a molecular weight > 500 (some jargon like that) which means that its too big to penetrate into your skin, so it wont affect anything in a bad way inside of you.

good luck! and remember, the sun is not good. you need to be protected! if you are not wearing ss daily, re-applyin 2 hours (because the protection can wear off) then you're going to keep moving backward. for example, if you are using a retinoid for your acne, thats a step forward, but if you're not wearing sunscreen that 5 huge steps backward.

1 last thing lol, once you start using a high ppd ss from Europe and you reapply it every 2 hours, you WILL start to see a difference in your skin. your skin will hold more moisture, it wont be as red or irritated, it's just a super wonderfully healthy thing to do for your skin!

do with this info what you will :)

i just found out about this a month ago! i'm in the process of ordering some Ombrelle online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can order euro sunscreens online, just a tad bit more expensive than drugstore sunscreens, + shipping. i dont mind at all about the replies, im seeing that no one cares really about sunscreen. barely anyone on this forum uses it religiously and no one seems to want to read the research and published clinical trials on the sun's damaging rays...without extrinsic aging (sun damage) we wouldn't wrinkle or age until 80 and onward, just because of intrinsic aging (time aging)...i dont have an attitude, im a nice person

Memzba, are you still reading this thread? What sunscreen do you use, and where do you order from?

I use a retinol product, so I have to wear sunscreen daily ... plus I'm 41, so I've learned my lesson. :)

But it is hard to find sunscreens that don't clog my pores and don't make me look shiny. I like the Calmin Enviromental Protection Cream but am always open to new ideas ...

thanks for any suggestions you can give!

Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, even though the particles of the zinc and titanium have been really refined, you still look like a ghost when you wear enough of the stuff. I got around this by wearing one that had no synthetic chemical additives but with a skin tone colour and that worked pretty well until the newest batch was a little different. Some are more greasy than others too so you can look like a slime ball. I don’t mind Megan Gale’s Daywear Facial Moisturising sunscreen SPF 30+ http://www.adorebeauty.com.au/adorebeauty/...?idproduct=2491 Only thing is if you wear a decent amount of it and I sure do, you still end up looking a little ghosty so I add a tiny amount of Miessence certified Organic (yes I’m a natural health freak) mineral foundation powder mixed in to tint it. As to zinc and titanium “the occlusive nature of physical sunscreens can clog pores, although for those people who tend to break out, all sunscreens can pose problems.� From cosmeticop.

I’m always interested in sunscreens etc so I’ll try to read up more on mexoryl and tinasorb when I get a chance. I’m interested like others here in what one you’ve tried and how it looks and feels on the skin, greasy/shiny etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zinc oxide and titanium dioxide do block some UVA, yes, but they offer minimal very minimal UVA protection. they do not cover the same length of the wavelength as Mexoryl or Tinosorb. they miss a lot of the wavelength

Here is an excerpt from one of the cosmeticop books about Mexoryl compared to these other sunscreens: “L’Oreal is correct when it says that 'it isn’t enough to protect against UVBs; skin must also be protected against UVAs. These two components of sunlight differ by virtue of their electromagnetic spectrum, their intensity, and their wavelength (290/320 nanometres for UVBs, 320/400 nanometres for UVAs), which indicates their ability to penetrate deeply into the skin. True, UVAs are intrinistically less powerful than UVBs, but they are more numerus and more penetrating. Mexoryl SX was the molecule finally selected. It brings together all of the essential required features [with] maximum absorption of 345 nanometres.' While I completely accept L’Oreal’s research in regard to UVA protection and the effectiveness of Mexoryl SX, the research I’ve seen from Hoffman-LaRoche, the manufactures and patent holder of avobenzone, indicates that avobenzone absorbs up to 400 nanometres. The manufacturers of zinc oxide have shown their micronized zinc oxide to be effective at 380 nanometres. And the manufactures of titanium dioxide have shown it to be effective at up to 360 nanometres. This may seem like hairsplitting, but when it comes to protecting the skin from UVA damage, every nanometre counts.�

I consider this last bit to be deceptive to the point of lying. Zinc oxide is effective at 380 nm. That's the cut-off for UVA. 400nm is visible light. So it's not true that 'every nanometre counts'.

Also, I just checked the safety msds on avobenzone. I found it scary- it's completely empty. This seems to imply there is no data either way. Why the heck should I stick something like that on my skin?

So far as I can tell, micronised zinc oxide is the ingredient of choice; not only does it not generate free radicals like titanium dioxide does when exposed to the sun, it's less white, and it seems to be likely to be entirely safe (zinc oxide is anti-inflammatory and routinely use in skin treatments, and zinc is actually an essential mineral! You can even absorb it through the skin if you are deficient.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out:

"Avobenzone (Parsol 1789) May Not Be Safe Either

In 1997, Europe, Canada, and Australia changed sunscreens to use three specific active sunscreen ingredients - avobenzone (also known as Parsol 1789), titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide - as the basis of sunscreens. In the USA, the cosmetic companies have held off this policy as they try to sell off their stockpiles of cosmetics containing toxic sunscreens banned in other countries.

However, avobenzone is a powerful free radical generator and also should have been banned. Avobenzone is easily absorbed through the epidermis and is still a chemical that absorbs ultraviolet radiation energy. Since it cannot destroy this energy, it has to convert the light energy into chemical energy, which is normally released as free radicals. While it blocks long-wave UVA, it does not effectively UVB or short-wave UVA radiation, and is usually combined with other sunscreen chemicals to produce a "broad-spectrum" product. In sunlight, avobenzone degrades and becomes ineffective within about 1 hour. "

(I've seen different stories about this last part FWIW, other sources suggest that avobenzone is photostable.)

Although micronised zinc oxide may not be safe either:

In http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/c...s/out222_en.pdf it says:

"The main concern of the present evaluation is related to the risk assessment of micronised

(approximately 0.2 µm) ZnO, which may be coated by other compounds, and which is used as an

ingredient in sunscreen formulations.

Micronised ZnO has been demonstrated to be photoclastogenic, possibly photo-aneugenic, and a

photo-DNA damaging agent in mammalian cells cultured in vitro. The relevance of these

findings needs to be clarified by appropriate investigations in vivo.

There is a lack of reliable data on the percutaneous absorption of micronised ZnO and the

potential for absorption by inhalation has not been considered."

Admittedly this can be interpreted as researchers saying that 'more research needs to be done', but still... (photoclastogenic means it generates DNA strand breaks when exposed to light, photoaneugenic I'm not entirely sure about, but it seems to mean causes inherited defects (however this is only in culture, not in an vitro/animal, they would have to show that micronised ZNO had some way to actually reach the reproductive organs in significant quantities. for this to be a real concern and they haven't done this.) Of course much the same can be said of UVA anyway, it is photoaneugenic and photoclastogenic; but the zinc oxide protects the skin, so it's probably true that it's a net win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically what it comes down to is...i dont like physical filters...i dont like having a white cast whatsoever none at all! and recently in part to this thread my mind has changed about euro sunscreens and im trying to find a suncreen with only Avobenzone and Octocrylene (it can have some other chemical sunscreens but not oxybenzone which is toxic but no octinoxate because that makes avo unstable)...also, avobenzone is photostable, but it needs to be stablizied with OMC, also known as octocrylene!

also, the suns rays go UP TO 400, they dont stop at 380. yes, 400 is the visible spectrum, but the rays go up to 400nm (maybe 399?)...

so basically im going to stick with chemical filters, and Avobenzone seems far superior after reading that it blocks up to 400nm! also, i was going to say that with any product on your skin, of course there might be a possiblity that some of the ingredients are toxic, but i really dont think its that big a deal...i'd rather have a miniscule amount of toxic chemicals in my body (everyone does, its ok) than have sun damage, but thats just me! thanks guy and sorry for my attitude im upset and depressed a lot! (soon to change..hopefully!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally never checked out avbenzone originally because I used other sunscreens. I saw too on pubmed what membsa was saying about it needing a particular stabilizer to increase its photo stability significantly. I used titanium on and off for a few years until I read something on rats getting DNA damage when applied to their skins and even if there’s nothing in it (haven’t checked the studies), my skin texture close up was really aging regardless and swapped to the zinc which was just starting to gain popularity where I live at that stage. As Wolfkeeper says you have to wonder about its potential problems too.

The book was 1998 so not sure how dated that makes some of these matters or what reasons if there are nanometre discrepancies. Either way cosmeticop is still promoting it because this is what’s on the cosmeticop website at the moment:

Despite the research showing these ingredients as fundamental to a sunscreen’s ability to protect skin, nagging questions about avobenzone’s stability persist. This uncertainty resulted from a story that appeared in Health magazine (May/June 1998) reporting on research conducted by Robert Sayre, a physicist in photobiology at the University of Memphis, suggesting that avobenzone may break down in as little as 30 minutes when exposed to sunlight.

Sayre’s study, which was never published or peer reviewed, (Source: Cosmetics & Toiletries, November 1999, pages 84-90) caused a commotion in the cosmetics industry. If Sayre was right (he wasn’t, but I’ll get into that in a second), a lot of sunscreen products should have been thrown in the garbage. Unfortunately, Health magazine did not look into how Sayre came up with his findings; his work was done only in a petri dish and not on human skin and he used far less than the amount required by the FDA for sunscreen testing. Even more significantly, there are still no other studies substantiating Sayre's results anywhere in the cosmetics or medical world.

It is critical for consumers to know that avobenzone is not some untested or untried sunscreen agent. It has been around since 1981 and is one of the most widely used sunscreen ingredients in the world. It is also the number-one sunscreen agent in Canadian, Australian, and European sunscreen formulations. The FDA approved avobenzone's use as a sunscreen agent in the United States after more than seven years of study. Avobenzone had to meet scrupulous performance standards when Hoffman LaRoche applied for it to receive new drug status from the FDA. New drug status is the most stringent FDA classification and requires more safety studies and efficacy substantiation than you can imagine. Avobenzone held up under all of the FDA's safety and potency protocol, or it wouldn't have been approved (www.fda.gov, Federal Register 1999: 64: 27666-27963.)

Even more significant, the January 1996 issue of Journal of Chromatography BioMedical Applications contained a study that looked at the issue of sunscreens degrading when exposed to sunlight. Their conclusion for avobenzone was as follows: "After 72 hours Parsol 1789 [avobenzone] in the sample exposed to the sun was decreased by up to 25% of the initial concentration." That 25% decrease was after 72 hours (far longer than anyone is supposed to rely on a sunscreen) and is a far cry from the 50% decrease reported by Sayre after only 30 minutes.

The definitive answer to the question about whether or not avobenzone is a stable sunscreen ingredient is that it is absolutely stable and there is substantial research showing that to be the case. (Sources: Journal of Investigative Dermatology, October 2003, pages 869-875; Journal of Cosmetic Science, November/December 2003, 589-598; Photodermatology, Photoimmunology, and Photomedicine, August 2003, pages 190-194 and August, 2000, pages 147-155; Photochemistry and Photobiology, February 2002, pages 122-125; Internet Photochemistry and Photobiology, www.photobiology.com/photobiology99/contrib/finlay/; and The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, August 2001, pages 256-267).

Avobenzone has value because it is one of only three active sunscreen ingredients available in the United States that protect skin from the entire UVA spectrum (the other two are titanium dioxide and zinc oxide). Without avobenzone, U.S. sunscreen options would be narrow indeed, and unless you have a known allergy to it, there is absolutely no reason to avoid avobenzone when shopping for effective, broad-spectrum sunscreens.

*Avobenzone may appear on labels as butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane

Paula Begoun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

memzba, check out the cetaphil facial moisturizer spf 15, with both avobenzene and octocrylene as the active ingredients. it can make you a little oily, but i just blot about an hour after application and everything is a-ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×